pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.

"these people", clarify.

It's quite obvious from the context, so I'm curious, who do you think I was referring to?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.

"these people", clarify.

It's quite obvious from the context, so I'm curious, who do you think I was referring to?

pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.

joebbowers, what would cause you to label the people in the video as criminals or dangerous?

But then I would not be able to see how different people interpreted it through their own personal filters.

So? I can see how people interpret things emotionally without having to act like an unintelligent bigot in the process.

Quote from: joebbowers

Not purely for amusement. Your reactions tell me who you are and expose your thought processes. Sometimes those reactions are amusing.

Amusement is one of the reasons you listed, yes. But the fact that you do do it at least partially to amuse yourself makes it trolling behavior.

Quote from: joebbowers

You haven't figured out yet that I don't care what you think of me.

I don't particularly care what people think of me (aside from people I know personally), but you don't see me trolling them to provoke emotional responses. It's because I care what I think of me. Furthermore, most people carry grudges against those who provoke them emotionally, and so any future observations you might make from them are going to be skewed because of that.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I think black people commit more crime than other races based on the fact that black people are arrested at a larger proportion than other races. I simply see no reason not to accept the data at face value.

Doesn't fly. You simply cannot accurately judge criminal tendencies based on arrests; people are arrested without being charged. Or they might be charged, and acquitted of the charges. Or, if convicted, they might later be exonerated if new evidence comes up.

Quote from: joebbowers

I found them irrelevant. While the data shows more whites found with guns, it does not demonstrate that fewer crimes are committed by blacks. So whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk. That doesn't disprove my point. It only demonstrates that whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk.

And that is the point. Data that shows more blacks arrested does not demonstrate that more crimes are committed by blacks, it only demonstrates that blacks are arrested at a higher rate than other races.

Quote from: joebbowers

You may choose to interpret the data to mean that whites are more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime, or that whites are more likely to carry a gun in self defense. The data makes neither claim, so it's open to interpretation.

I did neither, as it would be inappropriate and irresponsible of me to jump to conclusions about the reasons why more whites were found with guns when they were stopped and frisked than blacks without having further information about it. Just as it is inappropriate and irresponsible of you to jump to conclusions about the reasons why more blacks are arrested than whites without further information on the subject.

Quote from: joebbowers

Neither does the data report how many of those found with guns had permits to carry them, undoubtedly some did. Were a greater percentage of those legally carried weapons found on blacks or whites? We don't know.

Just as we don't know how many of those stopped and frisked were stopped and frisked because they were suspected of committing a crime, as opposed to because the officer judged they looked guilty of something.

Quote from: joebbowers

Officers claim that he repeatedly moved towards them despite their orders to stay down. Only at those moments did they resume their attempts to subdue him. At several points they stopped attacking, only to have King get up again, despite their orders, and make what they believed was an attempt to attack one of them.

I don't buy that; if he had actually attempted to strike or otherwise injure any of the police officers, that might work as a reason, but it sounds much more like they did the same thing you're doing now and assumed that he was a threat, and thus used more force than was necessary to subdue him. Whether or not he was actually trying to assault one of the officers in that initial lunge is unknown, but even if that justified the use of force to subdue him, I do not consider it to justify dozens of blows.

Quote from: joebbowers

Considering that this man had just led them on a high speed chase, and had a record of violent crime, they had no way of knowing whether or not he was armed and I think they were right in erring on the side of caution.

The fact that he was unable to attack any of them does not mean he didn't try, it simply means they were successful in preventing his attack.

No, it does not mean that. Unless you can actually show that he attempted to attack them, you should not jump to the conclusion that they were "successful in preventing his attacks". I think they were right to be cautious about him as well, but you can be cautious without striking someone dozens of times and breaking bones. Also, I do not think the police officers actually knew of his criminal record at the time they arrested him. What they knew at the time is that he had led them on a high-speed chase, that he was acting in an unusual and bizarre manner, and that he was resisting arrest. They also suspected some things that ended up not being true, such as him being under the influence of PCP. All of that certainly suggests they were right to be cautious, but I cannot jive caution with striking him over five dozen times, counting the kicks he also suffered.

Quote from: joebbowers

Not sure why you brought him up then. Rodney King is an example of a black man who was in fact a criminal, not someone who was falsely treated as a criminal simply for being black.

Think about it. Those police officers gave him a severe beating in the course of arresting him. Police officers are supposed to use the minimum amount of force they can in order to apprehend a suspect, consequent with their own safety. Some of this is hindsight on my part, and I'm aware that in an arrest situation, a police officer simply doesn't have the time and luxury to come up with the best possible solution. But they did not know that he had a criminal record when they arrested him, they only knew he'd broken traffic laws and the other things I mentioned above. Police officers are also supposed to be able to use their judgment in an arrest situation so as to avoid exactly the situation that arose - severely beating an unarmed suspect who apparently never even tried to strike a return blow in the course of arresting him.

Quote from: joebbowers

King was taken to the hospital with broken bones, the police made no attempt to cover up his wounds or the incident even before the tape came out. The tape probably helped him, but I don't think you can make the claim that there would have been no trial without it.

We'll never know for sure what would have happened in this case had there been no videotape. However, there are some points which support my argument. For example, the officers who brought King to the hospital openly joked and bragged about the number of times they struck him, according to the hospital nurses. The federal civil rights trial covered the training of officers at the LAPD. Neither of these inspire confidence that the officers involved would have faced any major consequences from their actions, or that there would have been a trial of said officers. My point was not that there would certainly have been no trial, but that it did not seem likely there would be one.

Quote from: joebbowers

Is that racism or the result of resisting arrest? The other two black men in the car with him were tased 0 times and beaten 0 times. How many times would he have been tased if he had gotten out of his vehicle as ordered? How many times would he have been beaten if he had gotten down on the ground as ordered? How many extra hits did he buy himself when he grabbed his ass in a lewd sexual gesture towards a female officer which was mistaken as a reach for a weapon?

The very fact that you suggest that he might have "bought" extra hits for himself as a result of that undercuts your argument. Police officers are not supposed to punish suspects for their actions towards the police. Furthermore, LA at the time was a city where racial tension between police and the black community was already quite high. You don't have to have a bigoted racist involved for racism to be a factor.

Your position here is coming across as that Rodney King deserved to be beaten because of his previous criminal record and because of his actions during the course of his arrest. That is not the case. Police officers were justified in using force on him to subdue him, but I do not consider dozens of strikes, many of which were delivered to him while he was on the ground and most of which were with police batons, to be a justified use of force. It's entirely possible that if the officer who drew her gun and initially got King to comply with instructions to lie on the ground had continued to cover him with her firearm while another officer handcuffed him, that he would not have been tased or struck at all.

Quote from: joebbowers

I steal TVs when I'm angry too.

I highly doubt you have ever been involved in any riot, so what you, as an individual, would do when you got angry is far different from what a mob, any mob, would do.

Quote from: joebbowers

That happens to people of all races.

Indeed. But you ignored the real point, which is that the arrest data does not itself say anything about whether black people are criminals. It simply shows that more black people are arrested.

Quote from: joebbowers

I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the data is actually accurate. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

You've stated several times now that you see no reason to believe otherwise, yet I've pretty well shown by now that your reasoning is flawed in using arrest data alone to state that black people are more likely to commit crimes. Furthermore, you are not "simply suggesting the possibility that the data is actually accurate". You are also stating that your interpretation of the data is correct, that black people are more likely to commit crimes because black people are arrested more frequently, and that is what I'm contesting.

----

Also, no comments on the Tulsa race riot, Joe? I think this, and the almost countless other examples of apartheid in the American South where virtually none of the perpetrators were ever even charged with a crime, rather dramatically undercuts your whole position. You judged that black people are more likely to commit crimes because they're arrested more frequently, yet I showed a case where hundreds if not thousands of white people were involved in the commission of a major race-based crime and never even arrested. The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow apartheid, and the pervasive racism that still inundates America today, is that if a black man and a white man are both suspected of a crime, the black man is frequently judged more likely to be guilty, regardless of any actual evidence (or lack thereof). You may not have intended it as such, but your statement that blacks are more likely to commit crimes because blacks are arrested more frequently is symptomatic of this general attitude.

I personally think that if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, including presuming guilt without even the courtesy of considering the evidence, they're very likely to decide they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb (or more accurately, if they're going to suffer the consequences of being considered a criminal regardless of what they do, they might as well get something out of it). Regardless of their race. Same thing applies to a group of people. That's human nature, Joe.

« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 08:59:40 AM by jaimehlers »

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Yes that was exactly what I was saying. I could have gone into detail, but I prefer to make bold statements that provoke emotional reactions and then watch how people respond. It's amusing, and it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Joe has not commented on the many white people in the US who have committed hundreds of serious crimes without even being arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

I recall there were several instances of black soldiers being attacked, beaten and lynched in their military uniforms after WWI and WWII. The soldiers mistakenly thought that serving their country overseas meant that they could walk down the street, or live where they wanted to and be left alone.

I did master's research on early 20th century racial violence in the US and found that white newspapers had sensationalistic coverage when a black man (often described as "a burly Negro" since no small black person ever did anything wrong) was accused of a crime against a white person. But the white papers rarely even covered the deaths of black people by whites. Black journalists and newspapers did, in detail so graphic it sickened me. These newspapers also became targets of white mobs who attacked journalists and burned their offices.

Might the history of racially biased media have something to do with the perceptions that blacks are more likely to committ crimes?

Joe also seemed to ignore the stories about my "retarded" brother, who, because he was a young black man who acted and looked strange, got followed by security, picked up, arrested and harrassed by police numerous times. The only crime he ever committed, to my knowledge, was when he once ran out of a store to catch a bus with some batteries that he was prepared to pay for.[1]His mental age was and is about 12.

And he had strange-acting geeky immature white friends who were not always in conflict with the cops. Wonder why.

According to what Joe has been saying, the police should not only have arrested my brother and taken him to jail for stealing the batteries, but they should have also beaten the crap out of him for acting weird. Because black guys are by definition dangerous criminals, strange acting black guys doubly so.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I think this is on-topic enough, at least when it comes to exploring if something is "prejudice" or not.

When I think of someone conducting a car-jacking, I think of a black male. However, when I think of a sick, twisted person who kills children and eats them, I think of a white male[1]. Am I biased against males? Hell no. If anything, I find myself biased in favor of males.

In other words, I see no "prejudice" in my preconceived notions. It's just an honest cross-examination of what I've seen or heard about throughout my life.

I've traced my family history back on my father's side to a German immigrant who moved here shortly after the Civil War. It is staggering to think that most black Americans who trace their family histories back that far would find someone who had been held in chattel slavery. Everyone who is an American citizen[1] is the son or daughter of immigrants.

However, black 'immigration' wasn't voluntary. They were stolen from their homes, if they weren't already slaves, and shipped here, forced to work and beaten if they didn't do enough. Sometimes even mutilated. If they were beaten to death, it wasn't considered murder any more than beating a dog to death was considered murder. If they ran away, they were hunted down by men with dogs, and dragged back in chains. It was worse for any slave that dared raise a hand against a white person; very few were simply killed as a result. More often, they suffered brutal tortures to serve as an object lesson to other slaves.

Black women were frequently raped, whether it was in a slave shed by an overseer, or between silk sheets by their master. Children of such unions were automatically slaves at birth, as indeed any child of a black woman was automatically a slave at birth, even if the father was not black. Families were frequently split apart as slaves were bought and sold; parents from children, husbands from wives (not that marriage was legal among slaves), brothers from sisters. The lucky slaves were the ones who were held by kind masters, who felt that black people just needed the 'civilizing' influence of whites long enough to gentle their 'bestial' natures.

Yes, they were considered beasts and animals by white people. It was a catch-22 with a vengeance; because they were born slaves, white people considered them to be the equivalent of talking animals, and justified owning them as chattel slaves because they were considered to be animals and thus property. But they could not win or earn their freedom through anything they themselves did, and so the cycle continued on and on.

Just thinking about this sickens and disgusts me. Writing it makes me want to scream in fury and break something, when it doesn't make me want to hide in a corner and weep. But none of those will do anyone any good. But writing about it, talking about it, trying to get through to people that these things are at the core of American prejudices about black people...that can do some good, assuming people are willing to listen.

I, too, am a male Caucasian, the son of German, Scottish, and English immigrants. Yet I know what it is like to be tormented and harassed for something I had no control over, where fighting back or even challenging my tormenters made it worse; to be caught in the middle of my own personal catch-22. If I had not broken the cycle...I don't know what would have happened, but it would not have been good. Yet many black people in this country are caught in a catch-22 of their own. As I stated earlier, if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, they are likely to decide that if they're going to suffer the consequences of something they never did no matter how hard they try to to get out from under it, they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

I've traced my family history back on my father's side to a German immigrant who moved here shortly after the Civil War.

I've been doing that too! I traced one line all the way back to William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, and back further. I find it fun, even though there's always that possibility of a "back door man" in there, but it's the best you can do, besides digging up the remains and conducting DNA tests.

Quote

It is staggering to think that most black Americans who trace their family histories back that far would find someone who had been held in chattel slavery. Everyone who is an American citizen[1] is the son or daughter of immigrants.

However, black 'immigration' wasn't voluntary. They were stolen from their homes, if they weren't already slaves, and shipped here, forced to work and beaten if they didn't do enough. Sometimes even mutilated. If they were beaten to death, it wasn't considered murder any more than beating a dog to death was considered murder. If they ran away, they were hunted down by men with dogs, and dragged back in chains. It was worse for any slave that dared raise a hand against a white person; very few were simply killed as a result. More often, they suffered brutal tortures to serve as an object lesson to other slaves.

Black women were frequently raped, whether it was in a slave shed by an overseer, or between silk sheets by their master. Children of such unions were automatically slaves at birth, as indeed any child of a black woman was automatically a slave at birth, even if the father was not black. Families were frequently split apart as slaves were bought and sold; parents from children, husbands from wives (not that marriage was legal among slaves), brothers from sisters. The lucky slaves were the ones who were held by kind masters, who felt that black people just needed the 'civilizing' influence of whites long enough to gentle their 'bestial' natures.

Yes, they were considered beasts and animals by white people. It was a catch-22 with a vengeance; because they were born slaves, white people considered them to be the equivalent of talking animals, and justified owning them as chattel slaves because they were considered to be animals and thus property. But they could not win or earn their freedom through anything they themselves did, and so the cycle continued on and on.

Just thinking about this sickens and disgusts me. Writing it makes me want to scream in fury and break something, when it doesn't make me want to hide in a corner and weep. But none of those will do anyone any good. But writing about it, talking about it, trying to get through to people that these things are at the core of American prejudices about black people...that can do some good, assuming people are willing to listen.

I totally agree. It makes me sick. I prefer to look at the bright side, though. Victims of the African slave trade didn't free themselves. They had help. There were white people in charge who thought it was a good idea to enslave people. At the same time, there where white people who thought it was cruel. Maybe the anti-slavery whites where the majority to begin with, and just didn't have the authority or didn't speak loud enough or . . . where simply the minority. I don't know. Somehow, the voices of reason slowly came through. Now, racism is on a constant decline. Where will the decline bottom out? I know this about as much as I know where theism will bottom out, which is to say I don't really know.

Quote

I, too, am a male Caucasian, the son of German, Scottish, and English immigrants.

Kinda sounds like me. The closest I can get to the boat is my father's mother. She was from Scotland. But with all the German from my other 3 grandparents, I am like 57% German or something(barring those "back door men"). I have a little English in there too. My mother's father's line goes back to the 1600's in the 13 colonies. So, on one line, I'm only twice removed from the boat, but on the other line, only the "Native Americans" got me beat.

Quote

Yet I know what it is like to be tormented and harassed for something I had no control over, where fighting back or even challenging my tormenters made it worse; to be caught in the middle of my own personal catch-22. If I had not broken the cycle...I don't know what would have happened, but it would not have been good. Yet many black people in this country are caught in a catch-22 of their own. As I stated earlier, if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, they are likely to decide that if they're going to suffer the consequences of something they never did no matter how hard they try to to get out from under it, they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

The "native" Americans may have migrated from somewhere....but we have been here 20,000 plus years.....If you wish to discuss it more I am open

I'm open. Whether it's right for a Native American to think that their "right-to-occupy-land-ratio" is 20,000 to 400 when compared with someone whose ancestry in America goes back 400 years is subjective. It's just like it's subjective whether or not to think that encroaching on the Palestinians is right. It's also like me thinking that my right to be in America vs. a first generation "native American" is 330 to 20. To be honest, in my subjective case, I do feel those ratios when thinking about Native Americans and myself, or me and people whose parents are immigrants. Hey, I respect the Native American. I also wish for the various Native American cultures to thrive. I don't want to see any more Native American languages become extinct, either. What can you do? As far as I know, I am not Native American at all. Over all, I feel terrible about the white man's treatment of Native Americans. I wasn't there, but there is enough historical evidence to back this up. It's extremely possible that if we could go back in time and watch a point around 200 to 1000 years after your and my branches from the family tree diverged, we could see your ancestors treating my people unfavorably.

Joe has not commented on the many white people in the US who have committed hundreds of serious crimes without even being arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

This is by no means a serious crime but I (white female) drove my car around for over a month with an expired inspection and my boyfriend (black) got pulled over for DWB the 1st time he took my car out last time he was here to visit & got a ticket. When he went to the court appearance to show that he got the inspection updated on my car they still gave him a bigass fine.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Joe has not commented on the many white people in the US who have committed hundreds of serious crimes without even being arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

This is by no means a serious crime but I (white female) drove my car around for over a month with an expired inspection and my boyfriend (black) got pulled over for DWB the 1st time he took my car out last time he was here to visit & got a ticket. When he went to the court appearance to show that he got the inspection updated on my car they still gave him a bigass fine.

A coworker had the same thing happen. She, white and middle aged, loaned her car to a neighbor's son. He was pulled over within a day for expired tabs. She had been driving for weeks with the expired tabs and had figured she would get around to renewing. She was horrified, because the young man was black and she later realized that he could have been beaten up or charged with stealing the car.

She said that was when she began to realize that she had "white privilege"--she had never been pulled over for the expiration all the time she had been driving. Her black neighbors told her it happened to them all the time, being ticketed for little things like a broken rear light or five miles over the speed limit, when the white woman would just get a warning. And she had no distrust of the police for herself but started to see why black people did. The lady reported this at a campus workshop on racial attitudes.

« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 09:54:46 PM by nogodsforme »

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

The "native" Americans may have migrated from somewhere....but we have been here 20,000 plus years.....If you wish to discuss it more I am open

I'm open. Whether it's right for a Native American to think that their "right-to-occupy-land-ratio" is 20,000 to 400 when compared with someone whose ancestry in America goes back 400 years is subjective. It's just like it's subjective whether or not to think that encroaching on the Palestinians is right. It's also like me thinking that my right to be in America vs. a first generation "native American" is 330 to 20. To be honest, in my subjective case, I do feel those ratios when thinking about Native Americans and myself, or me and people whose parents are immigrants. Hey, I respect the Native American. I also wish for the various Native American cultures to thrive. I don't want to see any more Native American languages become extinct, either. What can you do? As far as I know, I am not Native American at all. Over all, I feel terrible about the white man's treatment of Native Americans. I wasn't there, but there is enough historical evidence to back this up. It's extremely possible that if we could go back in time and watch a point around 200 to 1000 years after your and my branches from the family tree diverged, we could see your ancestors treating my people unfavorably.

Well here is where the history lesson begins....before 1492 there was an estimated 60-80 million aboriginals in America,Canada,,,and point south of USA....now I could not tell you how many...but its not 80 million

My particular tribe was at about 12,000 and it was an isolated lot of communities along the north coast of Canada....so very hard to get to in the early days of America/Canada exploration......we did not see white/spanish explorers til the 1700's....they came for the fur and later gold.

when we no longer felt like "playing the game" of letting them clearcut everything they decided to kill us. By 1862 90% of the coastal population was dead. Murder and germ warfare cleared the way for further rape of the land and its animals. The 10% of the population they did not kill were put into residential schools where they were abused and murdered.

The racism is ingrained in all colours,by violent action,greed,pride and a myriad of other devices used by men to kill and destroy.....the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them) Greed and cultural difference.

Tell me in your opinion in the time of England and Spain being the grand powers that be,has there ever been a time when the white man was suppressed and exploited?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them)

Except he's not. That would be the Jews. God's Chosen People. And they have gotten pretty much screwed both in & out of the bible.

NOT since the coming of God as man,Jesus,remember him. If you fail to accept Jesus you are NOT in God's good graces. And 2000 years of history hardly beats the 12,000 years of Indians or the 6000 years of the Chinese. And the "stories of the Jews being oppressed are hardly true accounts of history,unless of course you BELIEVE the bible.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them)

Except he's not. That would be the Jews. God's Chosen People. And they have gotten pretty much screwed both in & out of the bible.

My point here was actually wondering where/when the white men grabbed the power if we are blaming religion for oppression because the Jews called themselves the chosen. Noone in the Bible was really white unless you count the romans.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Tell me in your opinion in the time of England and Spain being the grand powers that be,has there ever been a time when the white man was suppressed and exploited?

In the time of England and Spain being the grand powers? No. I know that Spain was conquered by Muslims in the early 8th century, though. England has had its share of invaders, but that's mostly white-on-white action.

What happened to the Native Americans can't be undone. Just like we can't go back and undo slavery in the U.S.

However, we can strive to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Let's not pretend that the natives were living in peace until white man came along. They were killing each other and taking each other's land long before those ships arrived.

I also think it's unfair to use slavery as an example of white cruelty. It was black men who sold them to us in the first place, and it was white men who eventualy set them free. Africa today still has slavery without white men having any hand in it.

What happened to the Native Americans can't be undone. Just like we can't go back and undo slavery in the U.S.

However, we can strive to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Let's not pretend that the natives were living in peace until white man came along. They were killing each other and taking each other's land long before those ships arrived.

I also think it's unfair to use slavery as an example of white cruelty. It was black men who sold them to us in the first place, and it was white men who eventualy set them free. Africa today still has slavery without white men having any hand in it.

Let's not pretend that the natives were living in peace until white man came along. They were killing each other and taking each other's land long before those ships arrived.

Did I say they were living in peace, or is this a strawman?

Also, read up on the [wiki]Spanish Requirement[/wiki] sometime, and what the Spanish did as part of the process of subjugating, exploiting, and violently conquering the natives. Oh, let's not forget that it was also divinely mandated for them to do as they wanted.

Quote from: joebbowers

I also think it's unfair to use slavery as an example of white cruelty. It was black men who sold them to us in the first place, and it was white men who eventualy set them free. Africa today still has slavery without white men having any hand in it.

I don't think it's unfair. But I've based my opinion on much more than "blacks started it, whites ended it, and African slavery still exists today".

I strongly, strongly suspect this is just more of your efforts to provoke people on emotionally-charged issues so you can observe their reactions.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.